On the Eve of the Testing Window, Let Us Reconsider The Three Paths to Graduation.

As we all know, Ohio has expanded its graduation requirements to include three paths. These include the ever unpopular and still confusing End of Year Assessment route, the remediation free ACT route, and the WorkKeys Industry Credential route.

If you're unfamiliar, the state's presentation on them can be found here.

When referencing the Three Paths to Graduation, the Ohio Department of Education has taken on a reverent tone as if they are recounting the biblical story of the loaves and the fishes, and many people seem to be buying into this line with all the fervor of religious devotees. Where there was once only a single path to graduation, the legislature has acted in the interest of all Ohio children, and now there are many. Amen.

According to the ODE website, "The transition to multiple options for earning a high school diploma is an exciting one for students who will have more flexibility for success in school and preparing for their future after high school."

I don't know about you, but I'm sick with excitement, and to be fair, more seems better than less. We are Americans, and we want 3 burgers for the price of one. This is the land of plenty, and we should all be so fortunate to share in the bounty of freedom and opportunity, hamburgers, and more standardized testing options than one human being should be able to tolerate without a complete nervous breakdown.

What the ODE is assuming, calling on our blind faith or blind patriotism, is that we're going to believe that the state has created a system that by sheer inclusion of multiple pathways for assessment (I mean graduation) is somehow doing what is right for kids. Except that it isn't. I believe, and I hope I'm not alone, that this system is terribly flawed and could cause a sharp decline in graduation rates at least in the first 5 years, and perhaps beyond.

As I have indicated previously, some Ohio districts had fewer than 50% of their students scoring proficient on last year's Algebra tests (among others). That equates to fewer than the necessary minimum points toward graduation per test (2.57) for more than half of the tested students in those districts. Predictably, these are districts with higher rates of students labeled economically disadvantaged. I understand that the numbers will increase year to year over the next 5-10, but how are these students expected to graduate? Again, you cannot assume every kid who struggles with Math will pull brilliant scores in the other disciplines in order to compensate, and earn the necessary 18 points toward graduation. As a matter of fact, many of the students scoring poorly in Algebra will likely struggle across assessments.

Yes, the tests can be retaken in an attempt to earn a higher score. In this scenario we're assuming those same economically disadvantaged districts are re-testing better than half of their students. We are also expecting, regardless of district, a better score testing a second time despite the fact that those students are no longer enrolled in the courses being tested, and where no remediation programs exist because the assessments themselves are too new.

Sometimes when I mention my concerns regarding the new Ohio high school assessment system to people who would listen me, they concede that I may have a point. There is often a brief look of panic that flashes in their eyes as they consider the ramifications. Unfortunately, after that, many simply walk away toward their quiet place, humming to themselves, wishing they had chosen a career in plastics.

What I'm finding more problematic, however, are those few who stick around, and they are few. They take on a hopeful look, smiling sympathetically, as if to say, "You silly, silly, man. You worry needlessly." Then they explain in earnest... "Perhaps you don't understand. There are THREE paths to graduation."

Of course, forever the skeptic, I interject...

According to The Ohio Education Policy Institute, in analysis of state data, only 15.1% of students scored remediation free on the ACT in districts with greater than 90% economically disadvantaged students. In areas with high rates of poverty, rural or urban, this is not a viable path to graduation. In districts with only 10% economically disadvantaged the percent of students scoring remediation free is only 69%. It's not a foolproof option even in the state's most successful districts.

See that report here.

And if the solution is a vocational certification, a 2014 report by the Fordham Institute indicates that only one in four students in Ohio's Career and Technical Planning Districts earned an industry credential. The data in this report was somewhat limited, but the numbers do not seem promising.

Less than 50% proficiency on new assessments, 15% scoring remediation free on the ACT, 25% earning industry credentials. What does this mean? I believe that we have to assume that students who score poorly on Ohio's End of Year tests will also be unable to achieve a remediation free score on the ACT, and less likely to gain an industry credential combined with a satisfactory score on the WorkKeys assessment. This could be terribly problematic for Ohio's most vulnerable students, those who are economically disadvantaged.

My conclusions here are based upon some educated speculation. I teach in an urban high school whose success on standardized tests has never been guaranteed. I have been conditioned to fear the worst where the Ohio Department of Education is concerned. My school became very successful under the previous system (perhaps necessitating a new system under which we can fail), but it took some time. The work of myself and my colleagues will raise the scores over the next 5-10 years, but what about these kids? Their work deserves a diploma, and the Three Paths to Graduation, as exciting as they are, don't seem to lead there.

To be honest, I hope that my speculation turns out to be a misinterpretation of the data. However, it is the utter lack of dialogue regarding the potential problems that I find so terribly frightening. We cannot simply accept the state's line that this will all work out. They have no evidence to support their claims that this system is better than the last. Worse, they seem to be making this up as they go along. For the sake of my students, I'd prefer to at least begin a discussion prior to a potential crisis. 

More Valuable Data from the 2015 Assessments or The Post Where I Sarcastically Pretend to Be an Uninformed Boob in Order to Make a Point.

The figure above appeared in an article Saturday in the Cleveland Plain Dealer. It shows Performance Index scores when correlated with poverty. The article explains, "Performance Index is a composite of test scores across all grades and subjects that summarizes how well kids scored on state tests."

Very simply, the greater the percentage of economically disadvantaged students, the lower the state test scores in a district.

I don't know about you, but my mind is blown. Who would've thought that poor kids would score lower on standardized tests? Maybe we should test ALL of Ohio's students again next month to see if this is a pattern. If it is, wouldn't that mean that a disproportionate number of poor and minority students are being held back in 3rd grade and prevented from graduating from high school? I can't believe that our legislators could, in good conscience, permit such a system to exist.

That was exhausting. 

Students return to testing in a month. I'm going to predict that poor kids struggle, and districts with more of them are labeled as failures. Furthermore, the state will continue to fail to remediate the effects of poverty, praise themselves for raising the academic rigor, and argue that our testing system is providing a fine apples to apples comparison of school districts.

I will continue to teach, and try to direct my rage into something productive.

A Numbers Game?

5 American History classes.

146 students.

12 days until Spring Break. I should be pleased at things. The built in breaks enable us to maintain the level of energy and commitment necessary to teach successfully. We have a week and a half off. This should be plenty of time to prep our energy levels for the end of the year.

This year is different. The standardized tests in the state of Ohio are changing again. The sophomores I'm teaching are adjusting to a new assessment system for the second year in a row. This year the tests are in one window, which is great, except that the window occurs after that week and a half off, they are taking brand new assessments no more valid than last year's, and they're still working toward a high-stakes endgame, enough points (18) to graduate.

3 (2.57) is the average score a student needs on each assessment to reach 18.

79% is the highest percentage of students to score 3 or better on a given exam in my school. It was Geometry which was taken by all honors students last year.

Some of the percentages on other tests, like Algebra and American History were far lower. It is difficult to say exactly what this will mean for the prospective graduation of my students, their peers, or others in schools that typically struggle on these assessments (read urban schools with high rates of poverty).

I am trying to be optimistic.

We're all shouldering a great deal of anxiety, and grinding ahead in the interest of our students.

My plan is to wrap up a unit on Civil Rights this week, administer the SGM (another state mandated assessment) next week, and recap the first semester prior to break. A brief review is only reasonable, considering these kids are going to be assessed by the state on some material we haven't mentioned since September, and some from their World History course in 9th grade.

Then, in a leap of blind faith, I am going to hope that the best preparation for brand new assessments on which your graduation depends is to take a week and a half vacation. Then I'll pretend that I believe it's a good idea to assess all students on a variety of computers despite the research that suggests otherwise.

I will not, however, suggest to anyone that I believe this testing system is much better beyond shorter. I also will not be convinced that high-stakes measures like graduation should be tied to any assessment. The federal government doesn't require it. Most states don't either. 

At minimum, Ohio needs further revision of the system going forward or the graduation rates will plummet. For many politicians, education is a numbers game driven by election years. For those of us in the field, it's about these kids looking for a bit of understanding.

The Evidence-Based Set and Online Testing.

The Simulation below contains a set of 6 sources and corresponding sample questions from the state of Ohio's American History End of Year Assessment. It is an excellent example of the American Institutes for Research's directive from the state to create PARCC-like questions. The description of the set is described by the state as follows...

"An Evidence-Based Set is a group of several questions associated to one or more common stimuli. Evidence-based sets allow students to work with primary source materials to show deep understanding of social studies topics. The questions in these sets will assess a range of skills and content in the content statements."

The premise is academically sound as it facilitates the analysis of multiple sources, asks the student to draw on relevant ideas, and combine them in order to come to conclusions. 

My students and I recently undertook a similar process in analyzing the decision to develop and drop the atomic bomb. The activity took place over two days within our study of WWII, and involved an analysis of writing from Oppenheimer, Eisenhower, and the War Department, as well as President Truman. We watched interviews with Japanese survivors and members of the crew of the Enola Gay. Throughout the process we discussed the issues, and the effect the bombings had on the world going forward. Students wrote reflective essays and defended their thesis with facts from the sources we'd investigated.

Attempting to recreate this process as a part of a standardized test, while understandable, is contrived at best, and at its worst is another example of educational inequality. The problems begin with the fact that standardized testing takes any information out of an authentic context. As you'll see below, the assessment writers attempt to remedy the issue with a contextual introduction. This does something, though not much, to set up the simulation.

The real issues relate to the fact that 80% of Ohio's students will complete this process online, while the rest will complete it on paper. Online the 6 sources included here must be accessed individually using a drop down menu. In other words, students taking the test on computers have no opportunity to view the sources side by side. This creates a clear disadvantage, and was one of the many criticisms of the PARCC assessments last year. Many people assumed PARCC was the issue, but these problems persist regardless of vendor.

As the Cleveland Plain Dealer recently reported, states looking at comparisons are finding that scores from computer test takers tend to be lower than their paper counterparts. The issue above might begin to explain this phenomenon. Research suggests that the physicality of paper versus screen print promotes a tactile relationship that actually improves a reader's long-term understanding. What is also at play here is a student's familiarity with the technology in question. Just as many have argued that all standardized tests, regardless of subject, are reading and writing tests, they are now becoming assessments of technological skill.

As with most educational issues, economic inequality exacerbates the problem. Students in high poverty areas will obviously have less opportunity to develop computer skills in the home, so will suffer disproportionately as these tests become required online. Standardized assessments have already proven to measure economic standing better than any academic measure. The use of computers for testing seems as if it will further solidify this issue. 

Even if we could assure equal technological skill, which we cannot, the hardware will differ from district to district. It should be clear then that a student's ability to maneuver the assessment will differ depending on their use of a desktop, a device with mouse or without, a laptop, a tablet, Chromebook or otherwise. Furthermore, anyone who has used multiple devices knows that they are not all created equally. Student computer skill (or lack thereof) combined with a multitude of unequal devices on a variety of systems creates a recipe for further educational inequality. 

School districts are currently funding cost-effective devices in order to comply with the coming mandate of all online testing. With a lack of overall funds, it is easy to assume that these purchases are being made at the expense of the arts, music, physical education or other non-core areas. Naturally, time once devoted to these subjects can now be used in the interest of increasing a student's screen time in an attempt to assure improvement on state tests.

What is especially painful is the fact that success on the simulation below and the tests overall decide whether or not a student graduates from high school in the state of Ohio. Other online assessments determine a 3rd grader's promotion, a school's reputation, and a teacher's rating, among other things. These stakes are far too high for an assessment system like this.

A scenario that includes the number of issues that I have delineated here is at least deserving of some discussion. We cannot simply continue to grind students through an assessment system constructed without a thorough analysis, with little regard to its impact on students, that clearly exacerbates the educational inequality that is already terribly problematic.

Unfortunately, as the testing window nears, this is what we're preparing to do. 

The state of Ohio has released some resources for students and teachers in all tested subjects which are available on the ODE's website. I would encourage all stakeholders to analyze the materials. For our purposes here, I have provided screenshots of the sources, and then the questions from the simulation I have described. Consider the issues I've presented, check out the simulation below, and see what you think. 

Sweet Fancy Moses, Lonny is at it again.

From a press release from the Ohio Department of Education today...

“Teachers, parents, superintendents and education leaders believe that all students should take the tests, and their communities are better served when achievement is measured. After collaborating with education stakeholders and our partners in the General Assembly, we also know it’s important to provide schools and communities with additional information on the impact of student participation on the report cards,” said Interim State Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Lonny J. Rivera. 

What the hell, Lonny? Haven't you been listening?, or is this just more bullshit spin like I heard in the teleconferences you participated in on the wonderful improvements in Ohio's testing (See this blog's "Phone Forum Propaganda" 10/27/15 for more on Lonny's spin).

In the interest of full disclosure, Lonny, as a parent and teacher, I DO NOT believe that all students should take the standardized tests. I believe that they should be abolished, especially those tests that tie in high stakes decisions like the 3rd grade guarantee and high school graduation tests. Now, I know you've no interest in abandoning the tests, so how about ditching the high stakes and bringing Ohio's system of assessment down to the federal minimum. As you should know, as a professional educator and acting superintendent, the greatest predictor of test scores is economic standing.

I believe that you could save us all some trouble...teachers, parents, superintendents, and education leaders alike...oh, and students as well (who you forgot to mention), and use tax records instead of test data.

Furthermore, Lonny, I'm willing to bet that lots of other stakeholders would agree with me on this. I think you'd better start paying attention.

Greg Ring

Cheers to Lorain County ESC Superintendent Greg Ring for his opinion piece in the Lorain Morning Journal. Published in print this morning, it provides an informed and realistic look at Ohio's system of charter schools.

Highlights include...

"Ohio's charter schools take far more kids from school districts that outperform the charters than the other way around."

"Consider that in Ohio, no entity audited by the state misspends money at a higher rate than charter schools..."

Check out the entire opinion piece here...

http://www.morningjournal.com/article/MJ/20160202/NEWS/160209881

420

Years ago I had a student in class who liked to quote himself. He'd say something like, "Well, if I could quote myself..." and then go on to quote himself in defense of his argument. His method was brilliantly absurd, comedic genius. It was impossible to argue with his airtight misguided logic.

In the spirit of that guy, I'd like to quote myself, 

"Over the last several years an increasingly vocal contingent of administrators, teachers, parents, and students have criticized our system of standardized testing. In the state of Ohio, this activism has forced the hand of politicians. Recently they decided to eliminate PARCC, and cut one of the testing windows. It is not enough. The assessments created by AIR are not any better. Three hours per test is still inappropriate. We are testing beyond the federal minimum of hours and content areas. While we squander instruction time for the sake of assessments, the tests will continue to measure what they measure best, which is the relative economic well being of the students taking them."

I spoke these words publicly to the school board in my district this past fall in the interest of maintaining a critical dialogue regarding education and assessment. Should I be punished for this critique of standardized tests, or the many others I have made? According to an interpretation of Substitute House Bill 420, I might be.

As many of you already know, the bill prohibits teachers from "suggesting" that students opt-out of state assessments. Does the above critique make that suggestion? Well, I don't know, but if someone had it in for me, it might. If I were found in violation of the law because of my interest in collaborative intellectual dialogue on the subject of testing, then I could be charged with a minor misdemeanor, have my teaching license revoked, and lose my teaching job.

And I thought quoting oneself was absurd.

This provision is clearly an attempt to muzzle educators, is likely a violation of our first amendment rights, and is completely, professionally unacceptable.

This is not a paranoid scene from a dystopian educational future. It is happening.

I have contacted ALL members of the House Education Committee, and I encourage you to do the same. Below, you'll find the letter I sent. Copy and paste, revise it to your liking, then send it.

Representative So and So,

I recently sent an endorsement of HB 420 to your email. Unfortunately, I do not find the substitute bill in the same spirit. To be fair, even the original was only minimally appealing in its very limited scope and short term focus on limiting the impact from opt outs on last year's tests. In Elyria, where I teach and send my child to school, the refusals were statistically from higher performing students, and the original bill did nothing to address the effect this has on overall scores.

As always, I feel the level of Ohio's testing, well beyond federal minimums, combined with unnecessary high stakes (3rd grade guarantee, graduation requirement, teacher evaluation, etc.) to be the real issue.

The substitute bill's inclusion of language forbidding the "suggestion of opt outs" by teachers and other employees makes this legislation unacceptable and likely unconstitutional. I have never been an outspoken advocate of refusing tests. However, I do believe it is a parent's right. As a parent and teacher, if I opt my son out of assessments, am I suggesting opt outs? Furthermore, if I engage in a public dialogue that is critical of the assessment system, as I have done, am I suggesting opt outs? The bill does nothing to clarify, and so leaves educators open to unwarranted attack. These are only two scenarios that illustrate the point.

The language in question removes the most informed stakeholders in educational policy, teachers, from the discussion. Education is a collaborative endeavor when it functions best. Collaboration has already been threatened through high stakes assessment, pitting public schools against charter schools and other public schools, an evaluation system that pits teacher against teacher, school versus school. A system that thrives on cooperation and collaboration suffers in this environment. The marked decline in Ohio's national education ranking is proof of that. Substitute HB 420's systematic muzzling of teachers will only make matters worse.

I have not even begun to reference the constitutionality of the measure, or the hostility evident in the subsequent punishments if one is found in violation of the statute. I know that much of this came out in testimony.

I am not normally an advocate of completely dismissing work or using cliches that involve babies and bathwater, but in this case I encourage you to throw the baby out with the bathwater. House Bill 420 is lost and unnecessary. Dismiss it, and move on. Much is wrong with Ohio's education system. 420 is not the answer to any of it.

As always, thanks for your time, consideration, and work for your constituents.

Matt Jablonski